WASHINGTON — It was an early sign that this was not an ordinary political rally: The organizers put the crowd estimate at between 10 million and 6 billion.

And on the National Mall, the signs were equally zany. "This is a good sign," said one sign. "I like Ice Cream," said another. And a man dressed as a bear wore a T-shirt reading, "Free Bear Hugs."

The high-spirited crowd numbering in the tens of thousands flocked to what organizers billed as a "comedic call for calm." The turnout clogged highways, and filled subways and buses to the point of overflow.

Much of the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear," put on by "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart and his Comedy Central colleague Stephen Colbert — who poses as an ultraconservative on his "Colbert Report" — resembled a large-scale variety show, with humorous sketches and surprise musical guests such as Kid Rock, Tony Bennett and Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens.

Colbert arrived on stage like a rescued Chilean mine worker, in a capsule from a supposed underground bunker, after Stewart made a show of counting the crowd one by one.

But the three-hour event ended on a serious note when Stewart, in a break from his usual satirical stance, made an impassioned defense of U.S. unity and denounced cable-news depictions of a country riven with animosity.

"The image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false," he said.

"We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is, on the brink of catastrophe, torn by polarizing hate, and how it's a shame that we can't work together to get things done. The truth is, we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don't is here or on cable TV."...MORE...LINK-------------------------At ironically-titled "Rally to Restore Sanity," CBS/Viacom-owned, Comedy Central neolib cable talking heads Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart (above) instructed left-liberal drones (below) not to trust neocon cable talking heads like Fox News; little did the duped crowd realize, both sides work for the same corrupt statist-corporatist-zionist team that is exploiting, manipulating and plundering America

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Let’s face it: Most Americans don’t have much use for either of the major political parties and think it would be better to dump the entire Congress on Election Day.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of Likely U.S. Voters say if they had the option next week, they would vote to get rid of the entire Congress and start all over again. Only 20% would opt to keep the entire Congress instead. Fifteen percent (15%) aren’t sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Of course, the Political Class strongly disagrees. While 84% of Mainstream voters would opt to get rid of the entire Congress, 64% of the Political Class would vote instead to keep them all.

Not surprisingly, 82% of Republicans and 78% of unaffiliateds say dump them all. Despite their party’s control of both the House and Senate, Democratic voters are fairly evenly divided: 44% say it’s better to keep the entire Congress, but 38% would prefer to give all the national legislators the heave-ho...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion – 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”

Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”

This sum is equal to all current U.S. federal taxes combined. The consequences of the IMF’s fiscal fix, a doubling of federal taxes in perpetuity, would be appalling – and possibly worse than appalling.

Prof. Kotlikoff says: “The IMF is saying that, to close this fiscal gap [by taxation], would require an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal income taxes, our corporate taxes and all other federal taxes.

“America’s fiscal gap is enormous – so massive that closing it appears impossible without immediate and radical reforms to its health care, tax and Social Security systems – as well as military and other discretionary spending cuts.”

He cites earlier calculations by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that concluded that the United States would need to increase tax revenue by 12 percentage points of GDP to bring revenue into line with spending commitments. But the CBO calculations assumed that the growth of government programs (including Medicare) would be cut by one-third in the short term and by two-thirds in the long term. This assumption, Prof. Kotlikoff notes, is politically implausible – if not politically impossible...MORE...LINK

In the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008, the Federal Reserve announced it would buy mortgage-backed securities, or MBS. The January announcement by the Fed said it would buy MBS from failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the amount of $1.25 trillion. At the time, the Fed said in a press release, “The goal of the program was to provide support to mortgage and housing markets and to foster improved conditions in financial markets more generally.” (Click here for the full Fed statement.) It did provide “support” to the mortgage market, but did it also buy fraud and cover the banks that sold it? The evidence shows, at the very least, it bought massive amounts of fraud.

We now know the Fed definitely bought valueless MBS because it has joined other ripped-off investors to demand Bank of America buy back billions in sour home debt. A Bloomberg story from just last week, featuring Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser, reports, “The New York Fed, which acquired mortgage debt in the 2008 rescues of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc., has joined a bondholder group that aims to force Bank of America Corp.to buy back some bad home loans packaged into $47 billion of securities. On the one hand, the Fed has “a duty to the taxpayer to try to collect on behalf of the taxpayer on these mortgages,” Plosser said today at an event in Philadelphia.”

Mr. Plosser lamented the “difficult spot” the central bank is in because it is both bank regulator and plaintiff. He said, “Should we be in the business of suing the financial institutions that we are in fact responsible for supervising?” (Click here to read the complete Bloomberg story.) To that question, I ask shouldn’t the Fed have done a much better job of supervising the big banks in the first place? The whole financial and mortgage crisis from sour securities to foreclosure fraud is in the process of blowing sky high. The entire mess is clearly the biggest financial fraud in history! It looks to me like the regulators were just supervising their pay checks being deposited into the bank.

And remember, the $1.25 trillion of mortgage-backed securities the Fed bought from Fannie and Freddie? How much of that is fraud? William Black, the outspoken Professor of Economics from the University of Missouri KC, says all the big banks were committing “major frauds”in the mortgage-backed security market...MORE...LINK

Washington — As predictions of a Republican tidal wave in the coming congressional elections became more certain, some Israelis were experiencing goose bumps of anticipation.

Many on the right in Israel believe a shift of one or both houses of Congress to a Republican majority could limit the Obama administration’s ability to pressure Jerusalem — even more than it is already limited with the Democrats — in its quest for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians...

“Netanyahu fears a strong Obama who can apply pressure,” said Yaron Deckel, Israeli TV’s Channel 1 political commentator. “If the Republicans win big in the midterm elections, Obama will be weaker and less inclined to pressure Israel, and that will buy Netanyahu more time.”

But even if Republicans do win a majority in the House of Representatives, they will not, say some analysts, be like the Republicans Netanyahu worked with in the 1990s. While hawkish and pro-Israel, the new GOP leadership sees Israel as a lower-level priority, these analysts say...

“Gingrich loved the issue of Israel,” said Doug Bloomfield, a veteran Congress watcher, political consultant and former lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel Washington lobby, referring to former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

John Boehner, the current House minority leader, “does not,” Bloomfield continued. Boehner will become House speaker if Republicans win a majority. “Bibi doesn’t have a Republican leadership that is interested in Israel as an issue,” Bloomfield said.

Furthermore, the neo-conservative strain of the Republican Party that was dominant during Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister and was highly active on foreign policy issues is in decline. Greater influence in the party now lies in the hands of the Tea Party movement, a group for whom foreign policy is a second-tier concern. The Tea Party movement contains several contradictory strains when it comes to Israel...

A Congressional Democratic staff member pointed also to the impact a switch to a Republican majority could have on coordination between the White House and Congress. Recently, the administration has worked closely on Iran sanctions legislation with Howard Berman, the Democratic chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. At the request of the White House, Berman delayed a vote on sanctions legislation, despite Republican pressure, until the administration completed international consultations that led to a United Nations resolution on this issue. It is not clear if Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is expected to chair the committee if her party wins the majority, would act in the same way.

Citing the sanctions bill as an example, New York Democrat Gary Ackerman, argued that Israel’s best bet for addressing any concerns about Obama’s policy would be for Democrats to retain power. “I’m not saying that if the Republicans take the House it would be doomsday for Israel, but if they want positive influence on the White House, that’s us,” said Ackerman, who chairs the subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Ackerman and other Jewish Democrats point to the forceful criticisms they conveyed to the White House when they thought that Obama was leaning too hard on Israel.

“If you need the president, you need us as chairs of the committees,” Ackerman said as he listed what he called the “first-class team” of Jewish pro-Israel Democrats who chair key House committees: Berman at Foreign Affairs, Barney Frank at Financial Services, Henry Waxman at the Energy and Commerce committee, Sander Levin at Ways and Means, and Ackerman himself in his role as head of the Middle East subcommittee. “We are all pro-Israel and we all have major, major, major influence in the executive branch.”...MORE...LINK---------------

In the 111th Congress, there are a total of 257 Democrats in the House. Thirty-one of them are Jewish (all Congressional Jews are Democrats except for Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican). That's nearly 12%. (Again, Jews comprise less than 2% of the country).

And the ratio is even more out of balance in the Senate, where there are a total 57 Democrats, plus two "Independents" that caucus with the Democrats. Of that total of 59 Senators, 13 are Jewish -- an astounding 22%.

How many black U.S. Senators are there? Only one: Roland Burris, the only black in the entire Senate, even though African-Americans comprise over 12% of the country (and a lot higher percentage than that of loyal Democratic Party voters).

So it seems the Jewish supremacist Democrats have pulled a bait-and-switch on the "people of color" who routinely provide a big chunk of their votes, running as the party of diversity, equality and racial justice, yet promoting Jews (every one of which in Congress is a Zionist) in hugely disproportionate numbers to the highest levels of national office, and limiting blacks and Hispanics to the Capitol's service entrances.

So why did the ADL "correct" Israeli Jewish Zionist Rabbi Yosef when he inferred that the Zionist interpretation of Judaism was that Jews are supreme beings, and put on earth to lord over non-Jews? (His exact quote: "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel...They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.")

Given the vast over-representation of Jews in the Democrat Party, and even more so in the top chairmanships as bragged about above by Jewish Zionist Ackerman, it's clear that not only is Israel institutionally Jewish supremacist, but so is the "secular" Democrat Party itself.

Indeed, it appears that both the neolib Dems, and the neocon wing of the GOP are in agreement on the Jewish supremacist premise, given each's Zionist political objectives and Israel-first policies and geopolitical strategies, including Mideast wars fought at the behest of the Jewish state.

So I ask you, what self-respecting "secularist," or "pluralist", or patriotic American, and in particular, what kind of "Christian" would pursue Jewish supremacist policy and institutionalism both at home and abroad?

I'll tell you: the fraudulent kind.

These factions are working against the interests, values and essence of Democracy, Christianity, and America; they have sold their souls to Zionism -- and stiff-necked, hell-bent sociopaths that the are, they are destroying and plundering the country in order to close their deal with the devil.

Over the recent clamor of approval for the outcome of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which Beltway insiders are proclaiming a success because of the high rate of repaid funds, a lone voice of comparative sanity reminded Yahoo! Finance’s Aaron Task that the Obama bailout has done far more damage than the government-massaged figures indicate. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who seems to understand finance and banking better than most celebrity economists, told Task that the monies paid back to TARP are “just a drop in the bucket compared to damage done to the economy.”

The money was loaned to the banks on very favorable, even preferential, terms that amounted to a government subsidy of the banking system, Stiglitz pointed out. “If the U.S. government had provided money to ordinary business at zero interest rates, what would our economy be like?,” Stiglitz asked. “What we did is give zero rates to banks, they then lent at much higher interest rates; that's the recapitalization. That's the gift.” He estimated that the damage done to the economy by hidden distortions stemming from TARP is in the trillions of dollars.

Separately, Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, claimed in an interview with the New York Times that TARP losses from the AIG bailout were $40 billion more than the government has reported. Whereas initial reports tallied the AIG bill for taxpayers at “only” $5 billion, Barofsky estimates that actual audited losses amount to $45 billion. The difference? Official government figures have relied not on actual balance-sheet data but on gauzy future “projections.” “The American people have a right for full and complete disclosure about their investment in A.I.G.,” Barofsky told the Times, “and the U.S. government has an obligation, when they’re describing potential losses, to give complete information.”...

The appetite for taxpayer-funded bailouts is insatiable in the financial sector. The Washington nomenklatura remains loyal to the big banks and other financials that feed their addiction to overspending, and is prepared to squeeze taxpayers dry rather than allow a Bank of America or Wells Fargo — or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for that matter — to meet the same dolorous fate of hundreds of smaller, more honest, but less well-connected banks. Failure on Main Street is acceptable, it seems, but not (excepting Lehman Brothers) on Wall Street...MORE...LINK-------------------------

The president had come, on the eve of what will almost certainly be the loss of his governing majority, to plead his case before Jon Stewart, gatekeeper of the disillusioned left. But instead of displaying the sizzle that won him an army of youthful supporters two years ago, Obama had a Brownie moment.

The Daily Show host was giving Obama a tough time about hiring the conventional and Clintonian Larry Summers as his top economic advisor.

"In fairness," the president replied defensively, "Larry Summers did a heckuva job."

"You don't want to use that phrase, dude," Stewart recommended with a laugh.

Dude. The indignity of a comedy show host calling the commander in chief "dude" pretty well captured the moment for Obama. He was making this first-ever appearance by a president on the Daily Show as part of a long-shot effort to rekindle the spirit of '08. In the Daily Show, Obama had a friendly host and an even friendlier crowd.

But, as in his MTV appearance a couple of weeks ago, Obama didn't try to connect with his youthful audience. He was serious and defensive, pointing a finger at his host several times as he quarreled with the premise of a question...

Still, the president did not really quarrel with Stewart's notion that Obama has done some of his work in a "political manner that has papered over a foundation that is corrupt."

"I think that is fair," Obama granted.

But when Stewart moved, politely, to point out weaknesses in the health-care legislation, Obama pointed at him again. "Not true!" the president argued.

Obama wore a displeased grin as Stewart diagnosed, with high accuracy, the administration's condition: "The expectation, I think, was audacity going in there and really rooting out a corrupt system, and so the sense is, has [the] reality of what hit you in the face when you first stepped in caused you to back down from some of the more visionary things?"

"My attitude is if we're making progress, step by step, inch by inch, day by day," Obama said, "that we are being true to the spirit of that campaign."

"You wouldn't say you'd run this time as a pragmatist? It wouldn't be, 'Yes we can, given certain conditions?'"

...We are going to travel around Red America this afternoon. I intend to show that polarization and White identity politics are transforming the American political landscape:

1.) Let’s start by revisiting the Blue Dogs: White Democrats who represent “Red” districts in the South and Midwest. This species of Centrist is once again facing extinction.

Of the 54 Blue Dogs in the House, 6 are retiring or seeking another office. 39 are in competitive races. 22 of those races are toss ups. Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, leaders of the Blue Dogs, are in tough uphill reelection fights.

In the Senate, Senator Bayh of Indiana and Senator Dorgan of North Dakota are retiring. Both of their seats are considered safe Republican pick ups. Meanwhile, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas will almost certainly be defeated by Republican John Boozman.

At this point, it is inevitable that the incoming Democratic caucus in the House and Senate will be less Southern and Midwestern, less White and rural, and more progressive and urban. Likewise, the incoming Republican Congress will be more thoroughly White and conservative and geographically centered in the American Heartland.

2.) As the Blue Dogs fight for their political lives, it is increasingly hard to tell who will run away from Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi the fastest before Nov. 2.

In Alabama’s Second Congressional District, Rep. Bobby Bright has vowed not to vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. In Mississippi’s Fourth Congressional District, Rep. Gene Taylor is making headlines for claiming he voted for John McCain.

Gene Taylor, a Southern conservative Democrat, has easily been elected to the House in 11 election cycles. However, this year the current of White identity politics is running so strong in Southern Mississippi that Taylor is running behind his Republican challenger Steve Palazzo, who hardly sounds like a good ‘old boy.

If I were forced to award a first place prize, I would give it to Blue Dog Parker Griffith of Alabama’s Fifth Congressional District, who saw the writing on the wall and switched parties to survive last year. Parker was later defeated in the Republican primary.

3.) If the White working class had a capital, it would be West Virginia, where 9 out of 10 people are White and 6 out of 10 have never gone to college. In this state, Joe Manchin has done everything but shoot a target of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama to get himself elected to the Senate, and he is still struggling with the perception that he can’t represent “Red” voters as a Washington Democrat.

4.) Out in Arizona, the stigma that comes with being associated with the national Democratic Party is weighing down Arizona’s Democratic congressional delegation. 5 out of 8 congressional representatives from Arizona are Democrats. Of those, 1 has a safe seat, but the other 4 are in varying degrees of trouble.

It wasn’t supposed to turn out this way.

For months, the prevailing narrative in the mainstream media was that “comprehensive immigration reform” would hurt Republicans with Hispanic voters and would be a boon to Democrats in the Southwest. In reality, Gov. Jan Brewer will be reelected, John McCain was forced to repudiate amnesty, Arizona’s Democrats are fighting for survival, and SB 1070 has majority support in neighboring Utah, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado.

The times are so hard for Arizona Democrats that Raul Grijalva, a co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, is facing a stiff reelection fight in Arizona’s Seventh Congressional District which is majority Hispanic. This is largely attributable to his full throated support for the Arizona boycott when unemployment in his district was among the highest in the nation.

5.) Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Indiana, South Dakota, Arizona – an enormous Red backlash against the Democratic Party – these are all isolated examples of a larger national trend. If I had the time, I could extend this analysis from Southern Virginia to Ohio to Iowa to Florida. It is the same story everywhere you look: Whites are abandoning the Democratic Party.

In The New York Times Book Review, Christopher Caldwell ties all these pieces of the puzzle together with a persuasive explanation. In the last two years, over 50% of Americans claim to have become more conservative. Blacks and Hispanics are relatively unchanged in their political views, but Independents have shifted dramatically to the Right.

The White Right is energized like never before and the White Center is leaning away from the Left. Even college students have lost their enthusiasm for Barack Obama.

Identity and Economics

The preferred explanation of this on the Left is that racist White voters have rejected the Democrats because of the bad economy. There is some truth to this, but it is more like a shadow or distorted image of the real explanation.

Whites are abandoning the Democratic Party because of 1.) the perception that Democrats represent “them” and no longer “us” and 2.) because of the perception that Democrats are seemingly unwilling or incapable of doing anything for “us.”

If a terrible economy were to blame, why are less than 20% of working class White males without a high school education – the White lumpenproletariat, the most economically distressed segment of the White population – saying the country is headed in the right direction? Why are the vast majority of Jews, blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals still supporting Obama?

Why is Obama targeting affluent, highly educated Whites with low unemployment instead of disaffected White workers in the Heartland? Indeed, why is the White working class turning against “the people’s party” and the “party of government” in such dire economic times?

The Tea Party claims to be be based on a fiscal and economic message, but its members are not particularly financially distressed. Barack Obama’s supporters are more likely to be falling into the working poor and surviving on hot dogs and beans.

Alternatively, if Whites were motivated by mere racism, why did Barack Obama run so strong in Red America in 2008, in unlikely places like Idaho, Kansas, and Nebraska? Why did he win lily White Iowa or Indiana? Why did he carry Southern states like Virginia and North Carolina?

More to the point, why have explicit White Nationalists failed to make headway into the mainstream, seeing as how the prevailing narrative in the media is that the Tea Party is driven by White racism? If Whites were really and truly racists, it is reasonable to assume that White Nationalists would be enjoying more success than they currently are now.

Implicit Whiteness

Implicit Whiteness is at the root of everything we are seeing today. By implicit Whiteness, I mean a vague, unarticulated sense of White identity, which conservatives like Sarah Palin are successfully tapping into, and progressives like Barack Obama are rubbing the wrong way.

This diluted sense of White identity is compatible with a positive attitude toward non-Whites, a live and let live attitude, and a rejection of explicit racial consciousness.

It can switch either way.

In the right conditions, implicit Whiteness can be tapped into and harnessed to make Whites feel threatened by hostile outsiders, particularly Muslims, illegal aliens, and black criminals. At the same time, this form of Whiteness is weak enough for the masses to be sold on utopian anti-racist schemes.

Compare the popularity of Barack Obama in Alabama to Auburn’s Heisman Trophy frontrunner Cam Newton or Alabama’s Mark Ingram. When Whites can be persuaded that a non-White is “on their side” or “part of their team,” even the mental processes of explicit White racists can be shortcircuited.

Only the team principle can override the tribal principle. And then, usually not in the long haul. If Democrats want to preserve their majority, they must persuade White voters they are “on their side” and sincerely desire to improve their lives. Adopting a hostile, downright antagonistic posture out of alienation from White America will drive Whites into the Republican camp and eventually beyond it...MORE...LINK

So what is the closing argument of Barack Obama's Democrats before next Tuesday's midterm elections? The President is no longer the self-proclaimed "hope-monger" of 2008, who vaingloriously declared that his vanquishing Hillary Clinton marked "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal".

He has stopped patting voters on the back for choosing, by voting for him, to listen not to their doubts or fears but to their "greatest hopes and highest aspirations". Instead, he is berating Americans (most of whom now do not believe he deserves a second term) for not being able to "think clearly" because they're "scared".

Having failed to change Washington or, as he promised that night in St Paul, Minnesota in June 2008, to provide "good jobs to the jobless" (unemployment was 7.7 per cent when he took office and is 9.6 per cent now), Obama is changing tack.

Boiled down, the new Obama message to Americans is: you're too stupid to overcome your fears. To be fair, it's not entirely new. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was caught on tape at a San Francisco fund-raiser saying it was not surprising that voters facing economic hardship "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them".

At a fund-raiser in Massachusetts this month, Obama spoke of Democrats having "facts and science and argument" on their side. As opposed, presumably, to the lies, superstition and prejudice that Republicans rely on.

This year, Democrats have embraced with gusto the notion that Republicans, and by extension anyone thinking of voting for them, are dimwits. Their mirth over the likes of Tea Party figures like Christine O'Donnell, the former anti-masturbation activist who once she had "dabbled" in witchcraft and is now a no-hoper Senate candidate in Delaware, seems to know no bounds.

The most chortling of all about the populist Tea Party and its anti-tax, anti-government uprising against the Republican establishment can be found on the shows of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the edgy liberal satirists on Comedy Central. Mocking Republican candidates last week, Stewart declared the midterm elections as "the best chance ever for a bowl of fresh fruit" to be elected.

Three days before the elections, Stewart will hold a "Rally to Restore Sanity" in Washington on the same day as Colbert, who adopts the character of a Right-wing talk show host, leads a "March to Keep Fear Alive". The thinly-disguised message: Republicans are crazies who trade on fear.

In choosing California and Massachusetts, two of the most liberal states in the union, to demean ordinary Americans during election campaigns, Obama did not display a whole lot of his much-vaunted intelligence. But Obama's decision to plug Stewart's rally approvingly and appear on his show three days beforehand is even more foolish...MORE...LINK -------------------------One big, happy, parasitical family: Neolib Globalist-Marxist Obama being interviewed/promoted by hipster-liberal neolib stooge Jon Stewart, who himself is owned by sleazy Big Media Globalist-Corporatist shark Sumner Redstone

In a last ditch effort to salvage the Democratic majority, President Obama is encouraging Hispanic voters to remain inspired by stalled immigration "reform" to vote against Republicans on Election Day. More importantly, President Obama is inspiring his constituents to “punish our enemies and reward our friends,” encouraging a similar kind of “thugocracy” we have seen with labor unions.

In a radio interview that aired on Univision yesterday, Obama assured Hispanics that immigration overhaul was next on the agenda, despite the lack of Republican support:

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna’ reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

The New York Times reports, “The interview was taped Friday in Los Angeles for a show hosted by Eddie "Piolin" Soltero. Mr. Soltero’s radio show is immensely popular among California Hispanics. At the start of the interview, the Mexican-American comedian gave Mr. Obama "multiple" choices of what to discuss. A.) immigration reform, B.) immigration reform, C.) immigration reform, D.) all of the above. Mr. Obama took D. " ‘Absolutely,’ the president said.”...

The Blaze views Obama’s assertion to “punish our enemies and reward our friends” as an affront against “fellow Americans who don’t agree with his liberal policies.” Such comments are reminiscent of those subtly threatening remarks made by former Service Employees International Union President Andy Stearn on a variety of occasions.

During an interview with Naked Emperor News on June 15, 2007, Stearn stated:

We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws.

During an interview with Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ, on February 20, 2007, Stearn stated:

We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live.

President Obama must embrace such thuggery, as he has allied himself with both SEIU and Andy Stearn, who is a frequent visitor to the White House...

And now we find President Obama making similar statements to those of Andy Stearn.

News organizations like the National Review and Fox News view the remarks made by President Obama during his Univision interview as polarizing, creating an “us vs. them” atmosphere.

Worse than that, Americans view the comments as threatening. According to Prison Planet, the statements were “astounding new levels of rhetoric from the Great Uniter.” Weasel Zippers calls it “Leftist demagoguery at its finest.” Death By 1000 Papercuts responded to the President’s statements: “Why does this president’s rhetoric sound increasingly like it’s coming from a dictator of some two-bit Marxist hellhole? Maybe it’s some sort of wish fulfillment.”

Perhaps, however, when President Obama elected to label his opponents as enemies, he forgot that old proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” one that may work against him in the upcoming elections...MORE...LINK-----

Monday, October 25, 2010

The biggest US security breach in our history, carried off by WikiLeaks, reveals a wealth of information – hundreds of thousands of field reports, the raw material collected by the US military on the ground in Iraq. It will be quite a while before the “gems” are mined from this treasure trove, but initially the one that stands out as the jewel in the crown is the revelation of “Frago 242” – an order from high up in the US military command instructing officers not to investigate reports of torture and other human rights violations by their Iraqi allies. As the Guardian, one of the media outlets given privileged access to the database prior to its general release, reports:

“A frago is a ‘fragmentary order’ which summarizes a complex requirement. This one, issued in June 2004, about a year after the invasion of Iraq, orders coalition troops not to investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. Where the alleged abuse is committed by Iraqi on Iraqi, ‘only an initial report will be made … No further investigation will be required unless directed by HQ.’”

The Iraq war logs detail hundreds of reports by US personnel, recording incidents of abuse by the US-supported Iraqi authorities. Helpless prisoners are blindfolded, bound, thrown into dungeons and tortured, they are beaten with “wire cables, metal rods, rubber hoses, wooden stakes, TV antennae, plastic water pipes, engine fan belts or chains,” burned with cigarettes, electrocuted, sodomized, some as young as 16 years of age. Some prisoners are summarily executed.

We invaded Iraq, according to George W. Bush, because Saddam Hussein was “killing his own people.” Yet the same can be said about the regime we installed after the Iraqi dictator was deposed – and it was being done with our knowledge. There are many references in the Iraq war logs to detainees being turned over to “MOI” (the Iraqi Ministry of Information) for interrogation, where, as the Guardian reports:

“At the torturer’s whim, the logs reveal, the victim can be hung by his wrists or by his ankles; knotted up in stress positions; sexually molested or raped; tormented with hot peppers, cigarettes, acid, pliers or boiling water – and always with little fear of retribution since, far more often than not, if the Iraqi official is assaulting an Iraqi civilian, no further investigation will be required

There’s no doubt US officials knew about this torture, and by their inaction were complicit. Indeed, the regularity with which they turned over detainees captured by US forces to MOI personnel shows they were depending on their Iraqi allies to employ methods that were far worse than anything that happened at Abu Ghraib [.pdf].

This is quite clearly a war crime, committed not just by the Iraqi security forces but also by the top US military command and no doubt extending up to the political leadership. All roads in this matter lead straight to Washington, D.C.

Another aspect of the Iraq war logs is the revelation that, contrary to their public statements, the US military was carefully recording civilian casualties in Iraq – and the number turns out to be significantly higher than anyone thought. The new documentation indicates a minimum of 122,000 civilians were killed, 15,000 more than previous estimates.

Another little “gem” that has come to light: US pilots spotted two insurgents and tried to take them out, but they managed to scramble to cover, whereupon they came out of hiding with their hands up, indicating that they wished to surrender. However, a Pentagon “lawyer” in communication with the pilots told them to keep shooting. The log entry reports: "Lawyer states they can not surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets."

This is not just the record of the tragedy of war, the horrific chaos and horror unleashed by the mightiest military machine on earth against a nation that posed no threat to us or our legitimate interests: it is an indictment of those who made it possible – the men and women at the top, the ones who issued the orders, made the policy, and lied to the American people while they were committing war crimes in our name...MORE...LINK

Raimondo: "Assange, to his credit, simply walked out of a CNN interview in the course of which the “reporter” insisted on discussing his personal life – rather than the fact that the equivalent of a mass grave of 15,000 bodies had just been uncovered."

These mass media "assists" are how the Evil Ones are able to get away with their treachery, year after year. There's no way the lied-into-war invasion could have ever taken place without the media's complicity, but Bush and Co. knew they had the media sewn up. In fact, it might even be argued that the media had laid the groundwork in the years leading up to the invasion, and merely needed a 9/11 and right-wing combination to pull the trigger.

Before the Tea Party philosophy is ever even tested in America, it will have succeeded, or it will have failed, in Great Britain.

For in David Cameron the Brits have a prime minister who can fairly be described as a Tea Party Tory. Casting aside the guidance of Lord Keynes — government-induced deficits are the right remedy for recessions — Cameron has bet his own and his party’s future on the new austerity. He is making Maggie Thatcher look like Tip O’Neill.

Two headlines Thursday testify that the Tories have seized the Tea Party banner. First was the headline in The Washington Times, “Tea Party Urges Drastic Cutting,” that carried a caveat subhead, “Economists Question If Move Is Wise at This Time.”

Second was the Financial Times banner, “UK Unveils Dramatic Austerity Cutbacks.” The FT story begins, “The U.K.’s conservative-led coalition has announced the most drastic budget cuts in living memory. …

“The sweeping cuts in entitlements and spending far exceed anything contemplated in the U.S., where Barack Obama … has proposed only a three-year freeze on discretionary spending and Congress is still debating whether to extend tax cuts for the wealthy.”

The Tory budget cuts defense 8 percent and military personnel by 7,000. Translated here, that would mean a cut of $60 billion and about 100,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

By 2015, some 490,000 public-sector employees, 8 percent of the total, will lose their jobs. The rest will have their wages frozen for two years and face a 3-percent-of-salary hike in compulsory contributions to their pension program. The retirement age will rise from 65 to 66.France is in the 10th day of demonstrations, strikes and riots over President Sarkozy’s plan to raise the retirement age to 62.

If Cameron’s plans take effect and his projections prove correct, Britain’s deficit will fall from 10 percent of gross domestic product to 2 percent.

Writes the FT, “The UK cuts … over four years are the equivalent of 4.5 percent of projected 2014-2015 gross domestic product. Similar cuts in the U.S. would require a cut in public spending of about $650 billion.”

Nothing like that is being discussed here, and even if Republicans capture the House, cuts of that magnitude appear out of the question. The correlation of forces would not permit it...

Hence, the Tea Party faces almost certain disappointment, if not disillusionment.

Why? Because many in the Republican establishment also do not believe austerity is the way to go in a recession. Second, while most Republicans may favor deep cuts, they know that if they vote to cut Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, but do not get those cuts, they will get the pain but not the benefit and be held accountable, just as Democrats were held accountable for cap-and-trade, which they voted for but did not get through the Senate.

Republicans will come out of this election with a tricky hand to play. They will have the appearance of power, but not the actuality. They will vote for cuts that will not be agreed to by the Senate or accepted by the president.

If the economy is in the ditch in 2012, they will seem ineffectual. If the economy is improving, Obama and Bernanke will claim credit.

By then, however, we will know the fate of the Tea Party Tory who will at least have seen his policy prescriptions put to the test...MORE...LINK---------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

America is no longer the economic superpower it once was, and simply can’t afford to go on spending as it has in the past. Since it will continue to, inflation will eventually set in in a big way.

All of the money that is being burned now to pay for bankster bailouts, unnecessary wars, and to buy off various special interests and government unions and pay off cronies will come back to haunt the Establishment neolib/neocon Political Class from “Left” to “Right” -- not that it will care until it is put up against the pitchforks.

Cameron obviously possesses more foresight, brains, guile and intestinal fortitude than the entire establishment GOP combined. He also had the guts to basically admit his support for the Iraq war was a mistake (even if he supported seeing it through), and demand an investigation of neolib Tony Blaire’s rationale for involving Britain.

Why can’t the Establishment American Right produce a politicians like him? Because they are mostly ignorant, effete wimps who have been corrupted and bought off by Marxist-lite Keynesianism who instead seek to prove their manhood by ordering the bombing of Muslim women and children as they smear their own smug faces with caviar.

We have been utterly failed by the post WWII generations of leadership, who with a couple of exceptions are basically a buffoonish joke, a nasty collection of sick clowns. And America is going down the tubes as a result. Ugly, smug, clownish face of the post-Christian, neoconned GOP

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Inflation fears are heating up this week as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a speech in Boston on Friday, causing further frantic flight into gold by those fearful of the coming “quantitative easing” the Fed is set to deliver in November. Others who view gold as a short term investment engaged in immediate profit-taking after Bernanke's speech.

Gold is more correctly viewed as insurance against bad monetary policy decisions that erode the value of savings. Those bad decisions keep coming at an ever faster clip these days and we hear more and more talk of currency wars especially between the dollar, the Chinese yuan, the Japanese yen, the Australian dollar, and the Euro. As the economies of the world continue to stagnate or contract, monetary policy decisions become more relevant to people who once thought this topic arcane. We have several examples this week of major fumbles on the part of the US Central Bank:

· The Federal Reserve continues to insist that inflation is too low, even while the monetary base remains at record levels, and food and gas prices continue to climb.

· As the Fed continues to drive down the value of the dollar, the government accuses China of deliberately devaluing its currency, and the House has passed legislation aimed at punishing China for this alleged devaluation.

· Low returns on US bonds are driving investors into higher-performing foreign bonds. Some of these countries are responding by reinstituting capital controls to guard against hot money and the carry trade.

· The spat with China and reemergence of capital controls have led some to fear that we are in the first stages of an all-out currency war.

· The instability in the international monetary system, the decreasing value of the dollar, and the large amounts of new US debt could lead the IMF and countries such as China, Japan, Russia, India, and Brazil to abandon the dollar and adopt a new multinational currency.

While the big players in these currency games sort everything out, the people hurt the most are the savers, the workers, and those on fixed incomes as their money buys less and less. Make no mistake – the Fed and the Treasury Department are playing games with our money, especially in how they report statistics like unemployment and inflation. These games erode our standard of living and hide just how much damage their inflationary policies are doing.

Official core inflation for the US is only 1.14%, but that excludes such crucial day-to-day goods such as food and energy. Real inflation certainly is higher, maybe much higher. John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics calculates true inflation at a whopping 8.48%! But manipulated inflation statistics give the government cover when they again deny seniors a cost of living increase in their social security checks. They also serve to convince the public that further expansion of the money supply will boost the economy without causing any real pain, which has essentially been the core argument of Greenspan-Bernanke fed policy for the last 20 years.

Of course, the United States is not alone in its disastrous monetary policy decisions. These pressures are inherent in any fiat monetary system where money is created at will, for the benefit of the special interests. As all these currencies race to the bottom of the inflationary barrel, the only security to be had will be in honest money like gold as the system falls apart. My hope is that we can return to the wisdom of the Constitution and get back to sound, commodity-backed money before our dollar suffers a wholesale collapse...LINK

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

(Chris Moore) -- Writing at AntiWar.com, John Walsh says that even though he believes the tea party movement is not really grass roots, the progressives are going to sit this election out and watch the establishment Democrats who have betrayed the anti-war movement take a viscous electoral beating at the hands of the reinvigorated GOP; and because of Democrat corruption and betrayal, this, he says, is a good thing:

Why does no one on the Left say it outright? Obama and his Democratic Party gang should be punished mercilessly in the November elections. If they escape such punishment, then they will continue to break every real and implied promise to their base, and the goals of an end to wars and a decent, secure life will continue to be trampled under foot.

Let us remember that Obama was not, and is not, simply the candidate of the Democrats. He was and is the candidate of the most “liberal” or “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party, the candidate of “Progressive” Democrats of America, of Norman Solomon, Medea Benjamin, Michael Moore, and on and on. If this wing of the Democratic Party betrays the hopes of its supporters, then surely there is nothing decent remaining in the party. And so it has become apparent in the last two years.

The people understand this fact far better than the liberal pundits at the Huffington Post, The Nation, etc., and the people have already registered their discontent. A striking fact bears this out. Since 1970, the turnout in Democratic primaries has been dropping inexorably as the Democrats piled betrayal upon betrayal. And this year, according to data compiled by American University, the “average percentage of eligible citizens who voted in Democratic primaries was the lowest ever. The average percentage of citizens who voted in the GOP statewide primaries was the highest since 1970. … Democratic turnout was 8.3 percent of the eligible electorate, lower than the 8.7 percent of the electorate who voted during this period in 2006 and continuing [an] almost linear descent in Democratic primary turnout since 20.7 percent voted in the party’s primaries in 1966.” Why? It is a simple reflection of reality. In his 2008 campaign, Ralph Nader patiently and exhaustively documented how the Democrats have become more and more like the Republicans with each passing year, and so it is not strange that the response of the electorate to both parties has ranged from disinterest to disdain.

So what remains for the Dems? How can they scrounge up some badly needed votes this November? Scare tactics are about all they have left – which I might add is also the only thing the Republicans offer. If your e-mail inbox is like mine, it is brimming with pleas from the Dems to fill their campaign coffers so that they can save us from the Tea Party, China, and a handful of shadowy billionaires. The Tea Party is especially useful in this regard. It is great for the Republicans because it gives the appearance that the GOP has some connection to real people at the grass roots.

But for the Dems the Tea Party is even more bountiful, since it is pictured as a mass movement, racist to the core and about to plunge the country into a fascist abyss.

I agree with Walsh that it's good that some of the corrupt establishment Dems are going to be swept away, but I disagree that the "progressives" to their left are any less fascist (and ultimately warmongering) than mainstream neoliberal Dems or the mainstream neocon Republicans. Here’s why: Left-wing economics, including our current Keynesianism, are inherently parasitical. One of the biggest reasons Obama continues the wars is to preserve the $USdollar as the world’s reserve currency for as long as possible, so that Big Government programs and left-wing social pursuits (and left-right statist-corporatist fascist profits) can be continued as long as possible.

The dollar is being propped up by the U.S. military at the point of a gun, and has to be, because “progressives” and liberal capitalists in search of expensive social and environmental ideals and corporate profits have racked up the debt, hollowed out America’s industrial base, and globalism and outsourcing is now destroying America’s white collar base. Open borders, internationalism, globalism, atheist-materialism -- all of these "progressive" causes have resulted in a bloody scramble for the continuation of Keynesianism (the economic "moral authority" to get away with printing money out of thin air, with the world continuing to buy the debt) and thus continuing the parasitical liberal-capitalist material existence.

And at some level, Walsh seems to get this:

Obama is racing about the land in an unseemly panic, railing against “the failed policies of the Bush administration” – presumably the policies of waging war, bailing out the banksters while neglecting job creation and mortgage foreclosures, handing over the health care system to the murderous moguls of the health insurance industry, spying on antiwar activists, continuing the extraordinary renditions to torture chambers all over the globe, increasing military spending, and so on. There is no danger of returning to those policies, because Obama never abandoned them. They are now the failed policies of his administration.

What Walsh doesn't get, however, is that all of this is a natural outgrowth of the Keynesian, statist "progressivism" and socialist globalism and open borders internationalism that he and others to the left of libertarians advocate.

He also doesn't seem to get that while there are most definitely sinister and anti-libertarian subversive fascist elements within the tea party movement, the thrust of the tea party indeed comes from grass roots-level Americans who seem to instinctively sense the reality of our situation, but due to a lot of noise, misdirection, and blind alleys being engineered by corrupt socialist, neoliberal, neocon, and statist-corporatist elements to the left and in mass media, haven't yet felt their way completely towards libertarian nationalism.

At Potsdam, Germany, this weekend, Chancellor Angela Merkel told the young conservatives of her Christian Democratic Union that Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society where people “live side by side and enjoy each other” has “failed, utterly failed.”

Backing up her rueful admission are surveys showing 30 percent of Germans believe the country is overrun by foreigners. An equal number believe the foreigners come to feed off German welfare.

Merkel had in mind the Turks who came as gastarbeiters, guest workers, in the 1960s. Some 2.5 million now live in Germany.

Arabs and East Europeans have come more recently. One survey puts the Muslim population at 5 million.

“Multikulti is dead,” says Horst Seehofer of Merkel’s sister party, the Christian Social Union of Bavaria. He wants no more immigration from “alien cultures.” Turks and other Muslims are not learning the language, he contends, not assimilating, not becoming Germans.

Awareness of deep differences with Turkish neighbors became acute for Germans when, grieving in solidarity with America after 9/11, they learned that Turkish sectors of Berlin were celebrating Islam’s victory with barrages of bottle rockets.

Like all of Europe, Germany grows nervous.

This summer, Thilo Sarrazin, who sat on the Bundesbank board, published “Germany Abolishes Itself,” which sold 300,000 copies in seven weeks. Sarrazin argued that Germany’s Muslim population is intellectually inferior and unable or unwilling to learn the language or culture, and mass immigration is destroying the nation.

No rightist, but a stalwart of the socialist party, Sarrazin was forced out at the Bundesbank. Half his socialist party stood by him.

Across Europe, there is a resurgence of ethnonationalism that is feeding the ranks of populist and anti-immigrant parties that are gaining respectability and reaching for power.

Austrian nationalists triumphed in 2008 when the Freedom Party of Joerg Haider and the Alliance for the Future of Austria together took 29 percent of the vote. The Swiss People’s Party of Christoph Blocher, largest in Bern, was behind the successful referendum to change the constitution to outlaw minarets and prohibit the wearing of burqas.

Hungary’s Jobbik Party, which to the Financial Times “sits squarely in Europe’s most repulsive arch-nationalist tradition and which blames Jews and Roma for the hardships of other Hungarians,” pulled 17 percent of the vote this year and entered parliament with 47 seats, up from zero seats in 2006.

The Sweden Democrats just captured 6 percent of the vote and entered parliament for the first time with 20 seats, joining right-wing folk parties in Norway and Denmark.

Geert Wilders, a rising figure in Dutch politics, was charged with hate speech for equating Islam and Nazism. In June, his Freedom Party swept past the ruling Christian Democrats, who lost half of their strength in parliament. “More security, less crime, less immigration, less Islam — that is what the Netherlands has chosen,” said Wilders.

In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy — one eye on Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front, the other on the 2012 elections — rejecting cries of “Nazism” and “Vichyism,” is dismantling Gypsy camps and deporting Gypsies to Romania. Milan is now following the French lead.

What is happening in Europe partakes of a global trend. Multiracial, multi-ethnic, multicultural nations are disintegrating.

Russians battle ethnic Muslim separatists in the North Caucasus. Seventy percent of Americans support an Arizona law to identify and expel illegal aliens. Beijing swamps the homelands of Tibetans and Uighurs with Han Chinese. India fights secession in Kashmir, Nagaland and the Naxalite provinces.

“Wars between nations have given way to wars within nations, ” said Barack Obama in his Nobel Prize address.

Ethnonationalism tore Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union and Josip Tito’s Yugoslavia into 22 separate nations, and is now tugging at the seams of all multi-ethnic states. Globalism is in retreat before tribalism.

But the awakening of Europe’s establishment to the shallow roots of multiculturalism will likely prove frustrating and futile.

With her fertility rate below replacement levels for 40 years, projected to remain so for the next 40 years, Germany will lose 12 million of her 82 million people by 2050. Her median age will rise eight years to 53, and 40 percent of all Germans will be over 60.

Germany’s problem is insoluble. She is running out of Germans.

Yet if her welfare state is to survive and her industries are to remain competitive, Germany will need millions of new workers.

Where are they to come from, if not the Third World? For not one European nation, save Iceland and Albania, has had a birth rate for decades that is not below zero population growth.

Baby boomer Europe decided in the 1960s and 1970s it wanted La Dolce Vita, not the hassle of children. It had that sweet life. Now the bill comes due. And the bill is the end of their tribes and countries as we have known them.

Old Europe is dying, and the populist and nationalist parties, in the poet’s phrase, are simply raging “against the dying of the light.”...LINK-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

I agree that Orthodox Islam is ultimately irreconcilable with Western Civilization and Christianity. But then so is Orthodox Judaism. In fact, we’ve seen how even “secular” Judaism is capable of tenacious Israel-first and diaspora Jewish nationalist networking and tribalism, albeit less open and obvious than Islamist tribalism. In fact, this has contributed to the West's wars against Muslim countries, in part on behalf of Israel (as well as liberal capitalist Keynesianism), which has consequently contributed to Islamic emigration to the West from the decimated war zones.

The problem is that each civilization has to have its own cultural and spiritual moral authority, and those of other Abrahamic faiths simply refuse to accept Christian moral authority in the West. Leftists, globalists and “end of history” liberal capitalists tried to bypass this conflict by instructing the West that all that religious tribalism is in the past, and we will all proceed together hand in hand under the “moral authority” of money worship, secular statism, and liberal-capitalist narcissism. The problems is, they never asked the Christian-basis of Western Civilization if this is acceptable, and have found the other faiths even less accommodating to this idea than Christians.

The other problem is that this was only even remotely possible so long as attendant class conflict that goes hand in hand with the “end of history” materialist ideology could be papered over with Keynesian money printing, and the wealth spread around. But as America and the West have lost their economic domination over the world, that state of affairs is coming to an end as well, and the resources that remain are all being gobbled up by the crumbling statist-liberal-capitalist juggernaut and its insatiable string-pullers.

How will Americans react when the government begins to impose the same austerity measures that are causing riots, street battles, fuel blockades and other assorted chaos in France? Will we witness mass civil unrest or will the sleeping middle classes continue to scratch their butts and watch Dancing with the Stars?

Back in June we forecast that the imminent onset of so-called austerity measures, which in reality represent nothing more than an elevated phase of government-run looting of the taxpayer, would herald an “age of rage,” leading to “riots and even revolutions as people react with fury in response to their jobs, savings, basic public services, pensions and welfare money being seized by the financial terrorists who caused the economic collapse in the first place.”

Four months later and citizens of one of the most prosperous countries in the world with the highest standard of living have shut down France after six days of strikes and protests in response to government plans to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 and the full state pension age from 65 to 67.

Undoubtedly, there are two different protests occurring in France. The more violent scenes are the work of the rent-a-mob anarchist youths who couldn’t care less about pensions but will waste no opportunity to don black hoods and pointlessly smash up shop windows in demonstrations against “capitalism,” when in reality government seizure of pensions has all the hallmarks of command and control socialism and nothing to do with true free market capitalism.

These youths are more concerned about their welfare checks being cut, but they won’t garner the sympathy of the rest of the French people by taking baseball bats to Starbucks forecourts in mocked up media stunts. The legitimate protests and the ones that genuinely hurt the establishment and put the idiot anarchists to shame are being run by French workers, truck drivers, and union leaders, and enjoy the support of around 70% of the population.

Over a thousand gas stations have now run out of fuel across France, with strategic reserves set to last just a few weeks. Flights and trains have been disrupted, organized slowdowns have snarled highway traffic. The French are showing Americans how it should be done, by uniting peacefully to shut down an entire country. This is genuine people power – the French are sending a message to the establishment that they will no longer play ball until the looting stops...MORE...LINK

Last week, Laura Rozen of Politico reported that Mideast envoy George Mitchell's chief of staff, Mara Rudman, was resigning to take a job with USAID. Her article suggested that it was a sign of friction in Clinton's Middle East team, and for all I know that's correct. But the real problem isn't "friction" inside Obama's team; the problem is that nobody there seems to have any idea what they are doing.

I used to think that the 2000 Camp David Summit was the most ill-prepared and mishandled peace discussion in Middle East history -- which is saying something -- but I'm beginning to think that Obama and his team are making a serious try at breaking that dubious record. First they raise expectations sky-high in the Cairo speech, then undercut their own credibility by retreating steadiliy in the face of Israeli intransigence, until they end up literally begging and bribing Netanyahu to continue a settlement slowdown (not freeze) for a mere two months.

Question: Is this how a smart great power behaves?

Answer: Not if it wants to get anything done or be taken seriously.

Rudman's departure, however, is essentially meaningless. There is no evidence that anyone in the Obama team is committed to doing what it takes to actually get a meaningful deal, and so there won't be one. Full stop. You'd have to fire the whole lot of them and start over, and appoint people who were willing to get really mad when they were repeatedly diddled by a client state, and who didn't think that the best way to negotiate was to give one side a lot of goodies up front (in exchange for very little), while expecting the other side to accept a lot of promises to be redeemed at some unspecified point down the road (and maybe never)...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Monday, October 18, 2010

Conservatives beware — there’s a new betrayer in town, making all the right noises to assure you she’s on your side, when in fact, she’s just another pawn for the regime. Some people get it:

Sarah Palin’s media ascent is a highly orchestrated affair. Her placement as the titular head of the hijacked Tea Party was accomplished by establishment operatives. There was nothing grassroots about it. She’s a Judas goat leading the faithful down the primrose path to world government and forever war.The elite can always count on the lesser of two evils shell game….

Palin comes off as less “socialist” than Barry Obama. Her script has all the right patriot cues. It does not matter that she is a neocon. Socialism, tax cuts, big government. Sarah was carefully trained. She knows the catch phrases and talking points.

In the video, Palin tells us what to look forward to in the unlikely event she is selected to pretend she speaks for the American people. The possibility of mass murder in Iran is still “on the table.” Her neocon handlers have provided Sarah with the right talking points.

For further proof of what Palin’s actual agenda is, check out her comments at a rally she held this weekend in California:

Though billed as a benefit for state and local candidates, Palin’s appearance at the “Victory Rally” consisted largely of a broadside against Democratic policies and a paean to “American exceptionalism.”

“There is nothing wrong with America that a good old fashioned election won’t fix,” she said.

“American exceptionalism” is code for “continued taxpayer subsidies for armed intervention at home and abroad,” all for the purpose of expanding the power of the central government and the continued enrichment of politically connected big business. That’s how sincere conservatives are fooled into supporting policies that directly promote the radical, big-government agenda of the Neocons.

And the nonsense about how everything can be fixed with an election is aimed at keeping the serfs on the reservation their handlers have created for them. Yes, peasants, all your problems are Obama’s fault — no matter that Obama has continued Bush’s domestic and foreign policies...MORE...LINK--------------------------Is it any surprise that John McCain, a huge beneficiary of Zionist organized crime, would spawn political progeny with neocon tendencies?

The White House was embroiled in an embarrassing leak today after a group of black bloggers and journalists published details of an off-the-record policy briefing.

Members of the group accused the Obama administration of using them for political expediency and demanded the same level of access as other mainstream media.

One blog, Jack and Jill Politics, said: 'We essentially told the White House that we are not willing to be "pimped".

'Oh, we used better articulation, but it was direct and could not be taken out of context, misunderstood or ignored.'

Keli Goff, a blogger who writes for theloop21.com, said: 'I respect that the second half of the briefing was off the record, but I feel comfortable enough to say I think we made it clear that we want to be taken just as seriously and receive the same measure of access as the mainstream outlets already do.'This was a good first date. Now let's see if there is some substance there going forward.'

The group, which included members of outlets like Essence and BET, were invited to the White House on Monday for policy briefings by the president's advisers.

The White House had included ground rules that the first part of the meeting was on background, but that the second was off-the-record entirely.

Clips of group meeting Barack Obama have been posted on blogging sites.In them, the president stress the importance of using black media, especially blogs with large black followings...MORE...LINK

Regarding your article on the Gay Suicide Scams, this organized media thrust is dedicated to explaining / deflecting the cause of the mental illness that is VERY apparent in homosexuals.

The media is essentially saying homosexuality is very prevalent (wrong) and of natural origins (wrong) and that these normal, albeit different, individuals are being abused by discrimination (true) to the extent it is causing mental break-downs leading to suicide.

Well, let's look at some facts that Kinsey intentionally ignored: At least 80% of homosexuals are abused (often sexually) as children, or are at least products of single-mother parenting where they are preyed upon in a variety of ways.

The perpetrators are almost always tied to Rings that involved the local Elite, who are tried and true Satanic pedophiles. They live to defile and torture children, as they are energy vampires and sadistic.

The innocent children are victims to the extent of sexual identity pathology, which IS THE MENTAL ILLNESS. This legitimate and well documented illness is not addressed because it would expose the epidemic (and now multi-generational) of pedophilia perpetrated by the Elite.

But, it gets worse. It is known that the vast majority of sexually abused people become child abusers, often while in an "alter" persona that was created when their minds were horrifically shattered as children.

Although mentally sick victims, they become part of the perpetuating problem. This cycle leading to societal destruction has been understood for THOUSANDS of years. The process of breaking people as children (through extreme torture and abuse) to use them as various "tools" against society was well known in Egyptian times and is now perfected as a science.

In fact, the worse the pain and torture, the better for the Perp, as the child's mind fractures and suppresses memory of the abuse. In the end, the Elite get their energy and their sick kicks, while undermining and destroying the very fabric of society that is needed to counter their evil.

Brilliant, but a diabolical plan. Many of the mentally sick homosexuals who survive their childhoods and teens are placed in positions of power as adults, so they can be exploited by the Elite to further steer society towards doom, while the rest of us are crippled by "tolerance" and "politically correct" campaigns ad nauseum.

But, we should have empathy and sympathy for homosexuals and understand their pre-existing mental illness, which develops into a "collection of behaviors" that has negative effects on the mentally stable and untouched.

Preventing these people from being placed into positions of power (without intensive non-drug based therapy) is crucial. "Outing" is a necessary tool for our collective survival.

"Prejudice", as originally defined, is warranted, but violence and hatred is counter-productive. These people are victims, but are potentially very destructive. They need help and restrained guidance.

Unfortunately they are often at the helms of the Cultural Machinery, such as Hollywood, the Music Industry, advertising, modern art, print media, etc...MORE...LINK

Merkel: Multiculturalism failed miserably German chancellor takes harsh stance against immigrants, says they should be demanded to learn language, assimilate into society, yet stresses 'Islam is part of modern Germany' (YNet) -- by Assaf Uni --

BERLIN – German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Saturday that the multicultural model for integration in Germany has "miserably failed." For the first time, Merkel expressed a clear position in an ongoing debate over the integration of immigrants – especially Muslims – into German society, stressing that the current situation must be changed.

According to Merkel, immigrants should be required to integrate in society, by committing to learn the German language – and not only be allowed to do so voluntarily, as has been the policy up until now.

Despite her criticism, however, Merkel stressed that Islam was an "integral" part of modern Germany.

The chancellor's comment were said during a speech in front of the Christian-Democratic Union party youth congress (CDU-CSU), and came in the midst of a stormy debate ranging across the country's political spectrum, with CSU Chairman Horst Seehofer calling to stop Muslim immigration to Germany on the one hand, and President Christian Wolff declaring that Islam is part of Germany, just like Judaism and Christianity, on the other.

Merkel's remarks reinforced Seehofer's declaration on Friday, saying "multiculturalism is dead," and indicate a swerve to the right in the ruling party's policies – at least on matters pertaining to immigration.

Seehofer, who stirred a storm last week after declaring in a magazine interview that immigration from Turkey and the Arab countries – which he defined "foreign cultures" – must be stopped, added on Friday that Germany draws its values only from "Judeo-Christian tradition and humanistic values."

Although Seehofer's comments were strongly condemned by German officials including his own party members, Chancellor Merkel abstained from issuing a response.

Media warIn the past few weeks media outlets have been extensively covering various stories relating to immigrants in Germany, including a report about German students who were regularly harassed by children of immigrants, who call them names such as "pig eaters."...

Commentators raised the possibility that public sentiments and declining coalitional approval rates prompted the Right to associate with the populist camp in an effort to garner support...MORE...LINK-------------------------Open borders-pimping globalists Bush and Merkel practice "massaging" gullible conservatives into believing they're allies of Western Civilization at the 2006 G-8 Summit

The Obama administration has announced that the annual federal deficit remained at a whopping $1.29 trillion during the fiscal year that ended October 1, just a fraction under 2009's record of $1.43 trillion.

The deficit was more than $100 billion higher than Obama had predicted with his first budget proposal for 2010, but lower than more recent forecasts. The President's fiscal 2010 budget proposal, issued early in 2009 and entitled “A New Era of Responsibility,” placed most of the blame for the deficit that existed in 2009 upon the Bush administration. It claimed (partly correctly) that the Bush administration "helped turn a surplus of $236 billion at the end of the Clinton Administration, that was projected to grow still larger over time, into a deficit of more than $1 trillion in 2009.” Of course, Obama's fiscal 2010 budget proposal had already been larded up with “stimulus” spending that spiked the deficit much higher than the nearly $1 trillion Bush-era deficit...

Paul Krugman, ultra-leftist columnist for the New York Times (pardon the redundancy), has been arguing for some time that Obama needs to go big on deficits — and has even made the case that the President didn't really change the course set by the Bush administration:

The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.... If job-creating government spending has failed to bring down unemployment in the Obama era, it’s not because it doesn’t work; it’s because it wasn’t tried.

How can Keynesian economist Krugman make such an obviously false statement? It is false, of course. Federal spending has increased at about 10 percent per year under Obama.

But Krugman makes his claim by pointing out that while President Obama has dramatically increased federal spending, he didn't increase it at a faster rate than the equally fiscally irresponsible Bush administration.The Bush-era budgets increased at a nearly 10 percent rate as well. Federal spending has more than doubled in the 10 years since George W. Bush first took office, which amounts to a heck of a lot of Keynesian-style economic “stimulus.” Deficits have increased much more quickly under Obama because the economy crashed and revenues remained flat, Krugman has noted, while during most of the Bush era the IRS was able to extract more and more dollars from American taxpayers.

By pointing out that both Bush and Obama have dramatically increased federal spending, Krugman has essentially made the case that both Presidents have engaged in Keynesian economic “stimulus” for the past 10 years. The current economic situation is the direct result of Keynesian economics. In one respect, it is a lot like the last notable experiment in Keynesian economics during the Great Depression. The rate of federal spending under Bush and Obama — doubling over 10 years — roughly tracked the rate of increase in federal spending during the 1930s, the end of the Hoover administration and first two Roosevelt administrations. Of course, during the decade-long Depression-era Keynesian episode, the unemployment level never fell below 15 percent for any significant length of time.

For Krugman, the real reason for the economic crash is not too much, but too little federal spending. He reminds one of the blind follower of Marxist theorist Leon Trotsky who once argued that the proof of Trotsky's far-sightedness was that none of his predictions had yet come true. For extremist Keynesian economists such as Paul Krugman, too much is never enough...MORE...LINK-------------------------No Joke: Bush, Obama and their respective cult-like followers all subscribe to Keynesian economic theory, which is the "progressive" Western version of Marxism, ie Marxism-lite; And some Americans still wonder why the U.S. is going the way of the Soviet Union

Last year I wrote about a Tucson Unified School District social engineering plan that had the effect of meting out punishment based on racial quota. The school board had insisted, reported Arizona Republic’s Doug MacEachern, “that its schools reduce its suspensions and/or expulsions of minority students to the point that the data reflect ‘no ethnic/racial disparities.’” (It wasn’t reported whether the students cooperated and started committing infractions based on racial quota.)

It’s the kind of thing that, though outrageous, you might expect from a fairly large city with a leftist government.

But now, with a big Windy City leftist in the White House, this plan is going nationwide. As University of Illinois-Urbana Professor of Political Science-Emeritus Robert Weissberg writes:

[Department of Miseducation bureaucrats’] latest education-destroying innovation is eliminating the disproportionate suspension and expulsions of African-American students. This is not empty rhetoric; it is included in the Obama administration's $4.3-billion Race to the Top initiative, and schools that fail to mend their ways will lose federal funds and face expensive litigation at a time of shrinking education budgets. In fact, the future is already here, as schools are increasingly being targeted in resource-draining civil rights complaints about disciplinary unevenness (see here).

…How is this seemingly alluring "racial fairness" to be accomplished? The answer is not on a case-by-case basis by scrutinizing millions of outcomes to detect bias. Instead, bureaucrats will use the "disparate impact" approach — i.e., it will be assumed that racially disproportional punishment inherently equals racial discrimination. Thus, if African-Americans constitute 30% of the student body but half of all expulsions, racial discrimination is demonstrated.

… [And] [a]ctually, racial disparities are just the beginning. Obama's Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has also called for proportionality for disabled students (see here), and while "disabled" might conjure up images of wheelchair-bound students, this category also includes those with below-average intelligence, often compounded with psychological problems inclining them to disruption, if not violence (see Tomsho and Golden, "Educating Eric: A Troubled Student Was Put Into Regular Classes. Then He Killed the Principal." Wall Street Journal, 2007, May 12-13).

Professor Weissberg then delves into many of the problems this scheme presents, such as the removal of teachers’ discretion and the cataloguing of racial identities (think: a half-white man who becomes an all-black candidate for political benefit). He asks if schools will have to hire a “Racial Identity Officer.” Weissberg also points out that the quota system victimizes the very group it is ostensibly meant to liberate, as undermining discipline in racially mixed schools hurts the education of all — including blacks.

Obama’s scheme is also a disaster for race relations. After all, what kind of emotions will be evoked in white and Asian students when they receive punishment while blacks get a special dispensation?Like the Black Panther fiasco, Joseph Lowery’s anti-white statements at Obama’s inauguration, and The One’s handling of the Henry Louis Gates affair, it’s yet another example of our “post-racial” President’s �ber-racial passions.

But since modern America is so intent upon ensuring fairness, I wonder, since boys are disciplined far more than girls, will proportionality be applied to the sexes, too? Well, doing so when a reality redounds negatively upon males would be something new. Quotas and proportionality, however, are anything but...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Why would left wing-crafted federal policy assume that racial minorities being expelled from public schools at a disproportionate rate in and of itself is "discriminatory" or "racist"? Because the administrators are incompetent? But then that would mean they need to receive better training, or be fired, which the Obama administration doesn't propose. Instead, the Obama administration tacitly posits that because it is mostly White administrators performing the expulsions, there should be a presumption of racist motives based on the (White) color of their skin. That means left-wing policy itself is anti-White racist.

But again, the Obama administration doesn't subsequently call for racial sensitivity training for these "racist" administrators, nor call for their firing. Instead, it essentially issues a blanket declarative federal policy that all students must be retained at the exact same rate regardless of their ability to perform or behave, all apparently because it believes administrators are secret racists and bigots, hell bent on picking on certain categories of students.

But of course, it doesn't truly believe any of this; what it actually is pursuing here is a larger left-wing agenda based on the theory of "permanent revolution" in which settled and structured "bourgeois" society (which in the Bolshevik-origins of Communism/leftism was code for "Christian") is considered stifling, static, oppressive and bigoted, and thus must be constantly harassed, harangued, destroyed and burned down for history to progress. And part of that process of destruction is destroying the public schools and utilizing the young as agents of chaos and revolution by keeping them maladjusted, ignorant, primitive, frustrated, and rebellious.

Leftists and other infantile narcissists so readily intellectually embrace this theory of "permanent revolution" because they themselves suffer from arrested development, and the theory dovetails nicely with their own innate proclivity towards infantile tantrum-throwing and violence born of selfishness, mental immaturity, and narcissism. In short, they are mentally stunted, hence immature intellectual theories and their manifestations carry for them tremendous appeal.

There can be no intellectual reasoning with such an ideology or those who embrace it, because there is no good will in their intentions. The only response to such a people is extreme social marginalization and isolation until they mature and see the light, or don't, in which case they will go to the grave mentally and spiritually undeveloped, but at least having been restrained from perpetrating massive and possibly fatal destruction upon society as a whole, and possibly the entirety of Western Civilization itself.-----The Obammunist-Trotskyite theory of "permanent revolution" is designed to destroy the public schools and enslave the children in ignorance in order to "save" them